Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Oversimplification of the issue. Taxes can shape consumer behavior, the cigarette tax is a good example. However, unlike cigarettes, gas is a necessity. You can choose to quit smoking, but you can't choose to not put gas in your car so you can go to work or get around.

The whole thing w/ "foreign oil" is just missing the point IMO. It's an international market, it's not as if the oil we produce are staying inside the country. Foreign oil, domestic oil, they all go into the same pile that is the international market. The only way to change that would be to nationalize the oil industry and/or severely restrict/ban oil exportation.

As far as renewables go, solar and wind are nowhere near advanced enough to replace coal in the US, and the only one that can - nuclear, gets all the bad press.

1) Unless you live in NYC, Boston, or a town that invested serious public transportation, which unfortunately small. China already see the future and knows it cannot go around and invade/tap countries for resources, so it is aggressively pursing solar, wind and public transportation, as a national security policy.

2) Agreed.

3) Actually, you will be surprised how much Solar and Wind grew under the Obama Administration (So did gas and oil), but every panel you put up is a endless source of energy, meaning other fossil fuel can be diverted to other uses. Solar and Wind are never meant to completely replace fossil fuel (not likely for a long time) but supplement them in usage.

Europe has plenty of its own problems. Surely that's clear with what we've seen in Greece and Iceland, amongst other nations.

Frankly, if your argument is simply "Let's do what those other guys are doing. Who cares if some of them have just about bankrupted themselves, we should follow them anyway" that's not a terribly compelling argument.

If you want to convince people of a particular policy idea, then argue for the merits of the policy itself. You don't need to point to other countries to prop it up. A good idea is a good idea no matter where it originated from.

1) Unless you live in NYC, Boston, or a town that invested serious public transportation, which unfortunately small. China already see the future and knows it cannot go around and invade/tap countries for resources, so it is aggressively pursing solar, wind and public transportation, as a national security policy.

Now, let's not kid ourselves. China may be aggressively pursuing alternative energy sources, but they're doing it while propping up the country's energy needs with some of the dirtiest fossil energy production on this planet.

Also, the problem with public transportation in the US has more to do with the way our population centers have grew over the years. We have too many people spread out over too big of an area for many public transportation methods to be practical. There's no point for cities and municipalities to invest in a public transportation system that either nobody will use because it doesn't cover the area they are at and need to go, or too expensive because they had to cover too large of an area without sufficient number of users to sustain the system.

Quote:

3) Actually, you will be surprised how much Solar and Wind grew under the Obama Administration (So did gas and oil), but every panel you put up is a endless source of energy, meaning other fossil fuel can be diverted to other uses. Solar and Wind are never meant to completely replace fossil fuel (not likely for a long time) but supplement them in usage.

Well, as the actual equipments have a definite service life, it's not actually endless source of energy This is especially true for wind turbines.

They are definitely something to use for augmenting coal/nuclear, though in the long run I think space-based solar power is the way to go, unless them guys over at ITER can figure out how a way to make fusion practical.

Europe has plenty of its own problems. Surely that's clear with what we've seen in Greece and Iceland, amongst other nations.

Frankly, if your argument is simply "Let's do what those other guys are doing. Who cares if some of them have just about bankrupted themselves, we should follow them anyway" that's not a terribly compelling argument.

If you want to convince people of a particular policy idea, then argue for the merits of the policy itself. You don't need to point to other countries to prop it up. A good idea is a good idea no matter where it originated from.

Yes, I wouldn't want to imply that something is clearly right or clearly wrong without taking things into context. This is why when someone who doesn't live here starts sprouting ignorant shit and passing off as absolute truth, I call them on it, just as I would for people here that do the same thing to other countries.

It is still useful though to look elsewhere since they can help us by providing some empirical evidence. It is not ok to use it as a blunt instrument to whack people with.

Of course, my own posts in the gun thread should clearly point to which stance I'm taking (I really didn't feel like debating it again but just going to say that I am largely with Gundamfan's post above me), but even I will have to acknowledge that perhaps my nation's approach isn't the healthiest.

__________________

Let us start here from Square one. No... from zero.
Back in my day, you had to come up with your own trolls instead of posting an image macro! You kids have it easy! Avatar/Sig courtesy of TheEroKing
Guild Wars 2 SN: ArchonWing.9480 MyAnimeList || Reviews

Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyp275

Way to take unnecessary potshots, how classy of you.

It was a potshot only in your own mind. What I stated was simply the truth. I pointed out facts and figures, and only got "THE US IS DIFFERENT!" repeated ad nauseum back at me.

Quote:

Oversimplification of the issue. Taxes can shape consumer behavior, the cigarette tax is a good example. However, unlike cigarettes, gas is a necessity. You can choose to quit smoking, but you can't choose to not put gas in your car so you can go to work or get around.

Except you CAN put electricity in your car instead. So gas is NOT a necessity. And you can also decide to walk, bicycle, or use public transportation. Even carpool. Sure, gas makes it a lot easier, but my dad bicycled to work for years. Even I did.

The whole thing w/ "foreign oil" is just missing the point IMO. It's an international market, it's not as if the oil we produce are staying inside the country. Foreign oil, domestic oil, they all go into the same pile that is the international market. The only way to change that would be to nationalize the oil industry and/or severely restrict/ban oil exportation.

Quote:

As far as renewables go, solar and wind are nowhere near advanced enough to replace coal in the US, and the only one that can - nuclear, gets all the bad press.

And geothermal, and tidal, and hydroelectric, and... there are others on the table, too. True, no one source is going to handle everything, but when we draw from many different sources, it all becomes possible.

Quote:

Which ironically is something that an increased gas tax will do.

It will some. But people can more easily decide to use less gas. They can't decide to just make less money in order to get taxed less, at least, if they want to eat and live in a warm place. Apples to oranges.

Quote:

You can't continue to spend $3,000 every month when your monthly income is merely $2,000 forever without having it coming back and bite you in the ass later. I'm all for a progressive tax code, but the idea that the US can tax its way out of trouble purely on the rich is not only ridiculous, but also mathematically impossible. You can tax their income at 100% and not do much than making a small dent in the annualdeficit. That's not to say that there should be widespread and mindless budget cuts everywhere, the problem is that we're not spending our money wisely, or at least we're doing it with too much waste.

First off, the government is not a househould. Running deficits and a debt is not a horrible thing. We should be running a deficit in bad times, as we need to ramp up spending to get the economy back on track. The key is that during boom times, we should be running a surplus to store money for the down times. That's the part the government usually has problems with, though.

But let me point out a falsehood here. The top 1% of taxpayers took home an average of $370,000 AGI in 2010, per IRS records. The top 1% consist of 1.4 million people (who filed tax returns that year).

1.4 million people x $370,000 = $518 trillion

Well, we just blew away, not only the deficit, but the federal debt, too. Of course, it is silly to tax them at 100%, but you brought up the number, so I thought I'd put that particular notion to rest. But taxing them at 50% would still do the trick nicely. It's a common misconception that taxing the rich more won't solve our problem. Who tells you that? Rich people, naturally.

Anyway, that's my math based off of IRS records from 2010. What is your math?

Quote:

Ultimately what you need is growth, without which nothing else you do will be enough.

Growth is nice, but it is NOT the only variable in play. Nor is it the only thing to hang your salvation on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The actual number is 11,078 deaths by firearm [/URL] due to violent crime, not 30,000.

Oh, okay then. Only 11,000 people are dying, so I guess that is low enough that we can continue to arm ourselves and ignore the larger point about how a lot of people are dying today, because we are preparing for a fascist government that may or may not come tomorrow. By the way, where is the line for you? I am just asking, because I am honestly curious. How many people dying each year, due to guns (and I'll let you use just homicide if you like), would it take before you'd agree to cracking down on guns? Obviously, 11,078 dead people is too small. Was 30,000 too big? 100,000? Your statement implies you have some sort of number, where it goes from "okay to prepare for dictator" to "Hmm, perhaps we do have too many guns now."

That's all I'd like, is just a number from you, so if you could simply provide me one, that would be cool. Thanks!^^

I cannot put electricity into my car to make it go, nor can I afford a new car, nor can I afford a presently non-existanst conversion kit to make it go on electricity.

My car is over 40 years old and it still runs fine. The only computer in it is generally my cel phone. It was considered a compact car in 1972, were now it is about as long as a full sized car.

Electric cars with range are not cheap. Nor are electric "filling station" common at this time. The electric car is still a rich persons toy at the moment. It is coming down, but it is not in the realm of lower middle class common daily driver region yet. Nor is it presently viable as a work car, van, or truck for business uses.

Sure they could. Have you seen the vehicles that most Americans drive? It's definitely not hard to get a replacement vehicle with double - perhaps even triple - the fuel efficiency. Swap out the vehicles, double the gas prices, and their net gas expenditures remain the same.

Yes, because the people who cannot afford to pay an extra $100-$300 a month in gas expense can oh so easily go out and buy a brand new, fuel efficient car! And clearly, if they cannot afford double gas prices, netting that cost against better mileage means they don't mind paying the cost for buying that new car, because somehow it all breaks even!

Quote:

Worst-case scenario, people would move closer to their jobs.

Again, somehow not being able to afford gas means they can buy a new house or move in to expense city apartments?

Quote:

Bicycle lanes and parking could become more prominent.

I drive 20 miles each way to work. I have co-workers who drive 2-3 times that far each way. No way in hell bicycling is the answer.

Again, somehow not being able to afford gas means they can buy a new house or move in to expense city apartments?

If this happens then city slums will come back and they can go there for cheap price rent to live close to work. I do not want those slums to come back though.

I live in a very big city, and in my opinion it costs less to live in the main city than to live way out for slightly cheaper, but a whole lot more stress and gas and time to drive to work everyday. In my city all houses are expensive anyway, if you want to actually own the house. And if you really don't care where you live then there are plenty of dirt cheap, dirty apartments in the ghettos for you to live in in the main city. Way cheaper than living in the suburbs and you can live closer to work too. Just be careful once the thugs wake up.

We have public transportation in the main city, but it is not a lot of good. Nothing like the great subways in New York City. So anyone who's old enough and not mentally incapable has a car.

Except you CAN put electricity in your car instead. So gas is NOT a necessity. And you can also decide to walk, bicycle, or use public transportation. Even carpool. Sure, gas makes it a lot easier, but my dad bicycled to work for years. Even I did.

Last time I checked I (and for that matter, the vast, vast majority of people in American, and frankly the world) don't have a socket on my car to plug in, and I didn't see a $40,000 check from you for me to buy one, so no, it's very much a necessity. To claim otherwise would be delusional.

Walk? bike? how would you like to bike 20 miles each way to work in michigan winter while trying to navigate the snow covered ground which may or may not have a sidewalk for you to bike on? I'm sure you'll be thrilled with the idea of sharing the main roads with cars in the middle of winter, what could possibly go wrong.

Public transportation? who's gonna pay for it? when states, cities and municipalities are forced to cut down police and fire departments due to budget shortfalls, they're somehow going to come up with the money to pay for an expansive public transportation network large and robust enough to cover the third largest country in the world, where more than half of the population lives out in the suburbs?

Quote:

And geothermal, and tidal, and hydroelectric, and... there are others on the table, too. True, no one source is going to handle everything, but when we draw from many different sources, it all becomes possible.

Geothermal, tidal, and hydro are all very good, but also extremely location-dependent with a specific limit on capacity, and quite often their own set of environmental issues to face. Each type of energy production have their own advantage and disadvantages, but for now only fossil and nuclear have the capability of carrying the bulk of the weight of humanity's energy requirement.

Quote:

It will some. But people can more easily decide to use less gas. They can't decide to just make less money in order to get taxed less, at least, if they want to eat and live in a warm place. Apples to oranges.

No, not unless you figured out a way to achieve teleportation. People can't just decide to use less gas to go to work, no matter how much they may want to, that little thing in their car called an engine doesn't really gives two shits.

Quote:

But let me point out a falsehood here. The top 1% of taxpayers took home an average of $370,000 AGI in 2010, per IRS records. The top 1% consist of 1.4 million people (who filed tax returns that year).

1.4 million people x $370,000 = $518 trillion

Well, we just blew away, not only the deficit, but the federal debt, too. Of course, it is silly to tax them at 100%, but you brought up the number, so I thought I'd put that particular notion to rest. But taxing them at 50% would still do the trick nicely. It's a common misconception that taxing the rich more won't solve our problem. Who tells you that? Rich people, naturally.

Anyway, that's my math based off of IRS records from 2010. What is your math?

First I'd tell you to look over your number again, and ask yourself if anything looks odd.

Because you just claimed that 1.4 million people in the United State had a combined income of $518 TRILLION. Which is certainly odd, considering the GDI of the entire US economy in 2010 is only around the mid $14 trillions. As GDI includes "the sum of all wages, profits, and taxes, minus subsidies", I really don't see how your number can be remotely correct.

Here's a fun fact, your 1.4million people apparently earned more money in 2010 than the total economic activity and output of the ENTIRE WORLD($74.4 trillion) by SEVEN TIMES.

But let me point out a falsehood here. The top 1% of taxpayers took home an average of $370,000 AGI in 2010, per IRS records. The top 1% consist of 1.4 million people (who filed tax returns that year).

1.4 million people x $370,000 = $518 trillion

1% of USA population is 3 million but even then it is just $1.11 trillion. But not all people on the census pay taxes so I will trust your numbers more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyp275

Like I said, stay classy.

Last time I checked I (and for that matter, the vast, vast majority of people in American, and frankly the world) don't have a socket on my car to plug in, and I didn't see a $40,000 check from you for me to buy one, so no, it's very much a necessity. To claim otherwise would be delusional.

Walk? bike? how would you like to bike 20 miles each way to work in michigan winter while trying to navigate the snow covered ground which may or may not have a sidewalk for you to bike on? I'm sure you'll be thrilled with the idea of sharing the main roads with cars in the middle of winter, what could possibly go wrong.

Public transportation? who's gonna pay for it? when states, cities and municipalities are forced to cut down police and fire departments due to budget shortfalls, they're somehow going to come up with the money to pay for an expansive public transportation network large and robust enough to cover the third largest country in the world, where more than half of the population lives out in the suburbs?

Geothermal, tidal, and hydro are all very good, but also extremely location-dependent with a specific limit on capacity, and quite often their own set of environmental issues to face. Each type of energy production have their own advantage and disadvantages, but for now only fossil and nuclear have the capability of carrying the bulk of the weight of humanity's energy requirement.

No, not unless you figured out a way to achieve teleportation. People can't just decide to use less gas to go to work, no matter how much they may want to, that little thing in their car called an engine doesn't really gives two shits.

First I'd tell you to look over your number again, and ask yourself if anything looks odd.

Because you just claimed that 1.4 million people in the United State had a combined income of $518 TRILLION. Which is certainly odd, considering the GDI of the entire US economy in 2010 is only around the mid $14 trillions. As GDI includes "the sum of all wages, profits, and taxes, minus subsidies", I really don't see how your number can be remotely correct.

Here's a fun fact, your 1.4million people apparently earned more money in 2010 than the total economic activity and output of the ENTIRE WORLD($74.4 trillion) by SEVEN TIMES.

And now we see that taxing the top 1% at 100% will most definitely not get rid of the debt. Which means there are other things we need to look into as well if we want to lower the deficit or debt (though an even more progressive tax would not hurt).

I would only prefer an even more progressive tax on the people who like to evade taxes by getting a bunch of writeoffs.

Though some countries still use I think is called Long scale (European) which is different after a million (1,000,000) into milliard (1,000,000,000), billion (1,000,000,000,000), billiard (1,000,000,000,000,000), trillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000), etc....

3)Solar and Wind are never meant to completely replace fossil fuel (not likely for a long time)

I thought they were meant to replace fossil fuels. At the very least, I was under the belief that they're supposed to be the dominant sources of energy rather than just a supplement. Ray Kurzweil says that solar power is doubling every two years and that it should be one of the primary energy sources by the late 2020s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Taxes are also for shaping consumer behavior. If higher taxes lead to less gas used, then we can wean ourselves off foreign oil, and become energy self-sufficient with renewables. Especially since our electric car industry is getting off the ground. I'd tax gas higher, not to raise funds, but to gently nudge people towards electric cars.

Electric cars are picking up steam and will surely have a much bigger footprint in society by the decade's end, but they're still not exactly common and remain prohibitively expensive for many people. Were you in a position of leadership, I think the best thing to do would be to use your power for the purpose of helping to advance electricity-powered vehicles, ie funding research for more efficient batteries or creating more refill stations, that way electric vehicles can become cheaper and more common. People do have a fairly good track record for switching to superior technology whenever it becomes available, such as the way that the transition from VHS to DVD transpired across just a couple of years; so, I'm inclined to believe that most people haven't made the transition yet to electricity due to affordability and other factors, rather than a stubborn desire to stick to old-fashioned gas-powered vehicles.

Oversimplification of the issue. Taxes can shape consumer behavior, the cigarette tax is a good example. However, unlike cigarettes, gas is a necessity. You can choose to quit smoking, but you can't choose to not put gas in your car so you can go to work or get around.

Well, over a long enough period higher gas prices will guide consumers towards prioritizing fuel efficiency when buying new cars. We're already seeing this in action, as over the last few years SUVs crashed in sales, due to their running costs becoming untenable.

If people are shielded from the "real costs" of goods by subsidies, they make bad consumer choices.

Also, while I don't think a Bicycle or walking would be alternative option for most people, you could easily see more people car-pooling, setting up coops or switching to a motorbike. People would be able to cope with increases in petrol prices.

That said, I think it would be unwise to cause any sudden jumps in petrol prices, as consumers need some time to adjust.

Quote:

As far as renewables go, solar and wind are nowhere near advanced enough to replace coal in the US, and the only one that can - nuclear, gets all the bad press.

You're right on solar, but not necessarily wind. My own country (Ireland) has 10-20% of it's power coming from Wind, and we're not any more technologically advanced then the US. In terms of the US, it might be red tape that's preventing wind farms from being built. Ireland has also taken some basic steps to ensure wind farm viability, namely to provide a feed in tariff (IE, windfarms have a minimum guaranteed price for their electricity, which is set in order to make them viable), and now farmers are building them all over the place. The US could do the same, I'm sure.

Quote:

That's not to say that there should be widespread and mindless budget cuts everywhere, the problem is that we're not spending our money wisely, or at least we're doing it with too much waste.

Aye. I think the issues are found in the twin beasts of Military and healthcare spending. Meanwhile, people are trying to focus on welfare, where I doubt there's "waste" to be really found. Far as I'm aware, almost all the welfare checks go into the hands of people on welfare, not into bureaucracy, corrupt businesses etc. as with healthcare/military.

I thought they were meant to replace fossil fuels. At the very least, I was under the belief that they're supposed to be the dominant sources of energy rather than just a supplement. Ray Kurzweil says that solar power is doubling every two years and that it should be one of the primary energy sources by the late 2020s.

I can't say I share his optimism. Barring any major breakthroughs in efficiency and/or cost reductions, that timeline is not only aggressive, but impossible. Even the most optimistic of the studies I've seen pegs solar energy at around 10% by the end of 2020s. As a frame of reference, all forms of solar power consisted just 0.04% the total energy production in the US in 2011, with the majority of the development in the southwestern region of the US like California and Arizona - a solar power station in NY for example, is probably not the best idea

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Well, over a long enough period higher gas prices will guide consumers towards prioritizing fuel efficiency when buying new cars. We're already seeing this in action, as over the last few years SUVs crashed in sales, due to their running costs becoming untenable.

If people are shielded from the "real costs" of goods by subsidies, they make bad consumer choices.

Also, while I don't think a Bicycle or walking would be alternative option for most people, you could easily see more people car-pooling, setting up coops or switching to a motorbike. People would be able to cope with increases in petrol prices.

That said, I think it would be unwise to cause any sudden jumps in petrol prices, as consumers need some time to adjust.

Indeed, my sister just bought a new car (her first one in 10+ years), and one of her primary factor when deciding which car to purchase was fuel efficiency. Well, the most important one was how well the car is for small ppl (I'm not tall, and I get crushed by the steering wheel when I hop into the drivers seat after she adjusted it ), but efficiency was a very close second

Quote:

You're right on solar, but not necessarily wind. My own country (Ireland) has 10-20% of it's power coming from Wind, and we're not any more technologically advanced then the US. In terms of the US, it might be red tape that's preventing wind farms from being built. Ireland has also taken some basic steps to ensure wind farm viability, namely to provide a feed in tariff (IE, windfarms have a minimum guaranteed price for their electricity, which is set in order to make them viable), and now farmers are building them all over the place. The US could do the same, I'm sure.

Wind I think faces somewhat more unique challenges than solar. Obviously you have to build them in areas that have at least a somewhat consistent supply of wind, but even though it's still a rather intermittent even when compared to solar. The relatively large area of land required is also an issue, though one that can be alleviated by offshore farms, but that's obviously only for coastal areas.

Quote:

Aye. I think the issues are found in the twin beasts of Military and healthcare spending. Meanwhile, people are trying to focus on welfare, where I doubt there's "waste" to be really found. Far as I'm aware, almost all the welfare checks go into the hands of people on welfare, not into bureaucracy, corrupt businesses etc. as with healthcare/military.

That article in the Times about healthcare costs in the US is rather damning. As far as wastes in the welfare system goes, they're more in the form of scams and exploits, but overall it's relatively insignificant.

I can't say I share his optimism. Barring any major breakthroughs in efficiency and/or cost reductions, that timeline is not only aggressive, but impossible. Even the most optimistic of the studies I've seen pegs solar energy at around 10% by the end of 2020s. As a frame of reference, all forms of solar power consisted just 0.04% the total energy production in the US in 2011, with the majority of the development in the southwestern region of the US like California and Arizona - a solar power station in NY for example, is probably not the best idea

It sounds optimistic to me too. However, something to bear in mind is that it only took Ireland (and I think Germany too) about 5 years to go from 0% wind power to ~10%. The US could probably do something similar. Let's not forget that most powerplants have to be regularly refurbished at considerable cost (I'd guess every 20-30 years or so). If you're already removing old plant equipment, you can just as easily replace those with clean energy generation, as dirty energy generation.

Hopefully this is a repeat of the Human Genome Project (where those who insisted the project would take 700 years were very much in the wrong); it's hard to imagine him being that astronomically off the mark given his good track record. I'll keep hoping for the best, at any rate. I prefer to hope that we'll rise above the drudgery of everyday life at a good pace rather than continue to roll around in it. :/ Please change fast, shitty fucking world of ours.

I'll just note that I'm what my people call a "progressive engineer". A lot of these technologies have excellent long term merit in a mixed deployment. However, an engineer understands that proponents of these advanced technologies often wave their arms about without having the *slightest idea* of what the limitations and obstacles are.

That's when I spend a lot of time face-palming when a great idea is easily undercut by someone very enthusiastic but clueless about the details.

I'll just note that I'm what my people call a "progressive engineer". A lot of these technologies have excellent long term merit in a mixed deployment. However, an engineer understands that proponents of these advanced technologies often wave their arms about without having the *slightest idea* of what the limitations and obstacles are.

That's when I spend a lot of time face-palming when a great idea is easily undercut by someone very enthusiastic but clueless about the details.

Aye, there's no silver bullet. I feel disappointing when people completely give up on Nuclear, for instance. It's technology with potential. But Fukushima might have put an end to it for the near future...

I'll just note that I'm what my people call a "progressive engineer". A lot of these technologies have excellent long term merit in a mixed deployment. However, an engineer understands that proponents of these advanced technologies often wave their arms about without having the *slightest idea* of what the limitations and obstacles are.

That's when I spend a lot of time face-palming when a great idea is easily undercut by someone very enthusiastic but clueless about the details.

Are you referring to me or Kaijo? I understand that it can be annoying for the clueless to have overly strong opinions on things, but I don't think I need a thorough understanding of energy sources to say 'solar power is cool and has potential.'

Well, over a long enough period higher gas prices will guide consumers towards prioritizing fuel efficiency when buying new cars. We're already seeing this in action, as over the last few years SUVs crashed in sales, due to their running costs becoming untenable.

The problem of generating hydrogen is being tackled by scientists and engineers alike.
Daniel Nocera of MIT has made a few minor break throughs with his "artificial leaf" concept that could (after much further development) make hydrogen cells a reality.‘Artificial leaf’ makes fuel from sunlighthttp://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/a...leaf-0930.html

If his technology pans out, it would also allow Solar Power plants to use water to create hydrogen and thus clean fuel.